Skip to main content

Using Protocol Analysis to Investigate Collective Learning in Design

  • Chapter
Artificial Intelligence in Design ’02

Abstract

It is postulated that in a collaborative design environment, when agents interact with each other, they may learn from each other. In this paper, the phenomena of collective learning in team working are investigated using protocol analysis. Through such an investigation, a model of collective learning in design has been extended from an existing model of learning in design.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Argyris, C and Schön, D: 1977, Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective, Vol. 9: Addison-Wesley, Sydney.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, R and Israelit, S (eds): 2000, Introduction, Strategic Learning In A Knowledge Economy, Strategic Learning in a Knowledge Economy: Individual, Collective and Organizational Learning Process, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, S and Duffy, A: 1996 Sharing the learning activity using intelligent CAD, Al EDAM 10: 83–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunskus, B, et al: 1995, Using single function agents to investigate conflict, AI EDAM 9: 299–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K and Simon, H: 1984, Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gero, JS: 1990, Design prototypes: a knowledge representation schema for design, Al Magazine 11: 26–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gero, JS and Mc Neill, T: 1998, An approach to the analysis of design protocols, Design Studies 19: 21–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grecu, D and Brown, D: 1996a, Learning by single function agents during spring design, in JS Gero and F Sudweeks (eds), Artificial Intelligence in Design ‘86, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 409–428.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Grecu, D and Brown, D: 1996b, Dimensions of learning in agent-based design, AID’96 ML in Design Workshop.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grecu, D and Brown, D: 2000, Expectation formation in multi-agent design systems, in JS Gero (ed.), Artificial Intelligence in Design ‘00, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 651–652

    Google Scholar 

  • Haynes, T and Sen, S: 1996, Co-adaptation in a team, International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Organizations 1 (4): 240–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • HO, F and Kamel, M: 1998, Learning coordination strategies for cooperative multiagent systems, Machine Learning 33: 155–177.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Karni, R, et al: 1992, Towards learning in concurrent engineering design, A workshop of AID’92 Machine Learning in Design.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, D: 1993, The link between individual and organizational learning, Sloan Management Review Fall: 37–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, M, and Lu, S: 1989, Conflict resolution in cooperative design, Artificial Intelligence in Engineering 4 (4): 168–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, M: 1991, Supporting conflict resolution in cooperative design systems, IEEE Systems, Man and Cybernetics 21 (6): 1379–1390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marton, F and Booth, S: 1997, Learning and Awareness, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neergaard, C: 1994, Creating a Learning Organisation: A Comprehensive Framework, Department of Production, Aalborg University, Denmark.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ono, N and Fukumoto, K: 1997, A modular approach to multi-agent reinforcement learning, in G Weib (ed.), Distributed Artificial Intelligence Meets Machine Learning In Multi-Agent Environments, Springer, Berlin, pp. 25–39.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pearsall, J (ed): 1998, The New Oxford Dictionary of English, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Persidis, A and Duffy, A: 1991, Learning in engineering design, in H Yoshikawa, F Arbab and T Tomiyama (eds), Intelligent CAD, III, Elsevier, 251–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prasad, M, et al: 1997, Learning organizational roles in a heterogeneous multi-agent system, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 48 (1): 51–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prasad, M and Lessor, V: 1997, Learning Situation-Specific Coordination in Cooperative Multi-Agent Systems, Department of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reich, Y and Fenves, S: 1989, The potential of machine leaning techniques for expert systems, AI EDAM 3 (3): 175–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, S, et al.: 1994, Learning to coordinate without sharing information, Proceeding National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Seattle, Washington, pp. 426–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, G: 1988, Neurobiology, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sim, SK: 2000, Modelling Learning in Design, Ph.D. Thesis, CAD Centre. University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H: 1983, Why should machines learn?, in RS Michalski, et al (eds), Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, pp. 25–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smithers, T and Troxell, W: 1990, Design is intelligent behaviour, but what’s the formalism, AI EDAM 4: 89–98.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Wu, Z., Duffy, A. (2002). Using Protocol Analysis to Investigate Collective Learning in Design. In: Gero, J.S. (eds) Artificial Intelligence in Design ’02. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0795-4_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0795-4_13

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-6059-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-0795-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics